<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Arbitration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/arbitration-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Table Manners &#8211; Recipes for Negotiators</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advice and Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negotiation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, once said:  “A failure to prepare is preparing to fail.”  The same can be said of the negotiator.  Preparation is another crucial determinant of the negotiating process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action waiver upheld in competition case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada enforced a class action waiver and an arbitration clause in a private action under section 36 of the Competition Act.[1] The decision is significant because it clearly states two important principles: Class action waivers will be enforced unless they are contrary to statute Claims alleging breaches&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>International arbitrations get deference on merits but not jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Somerville</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investor-State Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAFTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review of arbitral decision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal shed new light on the standard of review for international arbitrations in <i>United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc.</i> Courts must review an arbitral tribunal’s assumption of jurisdiction on a correctness standard. But the merits of the tribunal’s decision attract the utmost deference. The Court found that the NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitral Tribunal under review correctly assumed its jurisdiction, upholding the Tribunal’s $77.3 million award against Mexico.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes &#8211; Its Time Has Come</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investor-State Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bill c-53]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icisid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minister of international trade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada&#8217;s ratification of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (the &#8220;Convention&#8221;) has been a long time coming.&#160;Since signing the Convention in 2006 and passing implementing legislation in 2008 that has yet to come into force, Canada has made no further progress towards ensuring that the International&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No class action where arbitrator has jurisdiction, court holds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie Gabor, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension plans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Class action legislation does not give courts jurisdiction over cases that would otherwise be dealt with by tribunals or arbitrators, the Supreme Court held in Concordia v. Bisaillon.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal court finds that &#8220;non-final&#8221; U.K. order should be enforced in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/appeal-court-finds-that-non-final-uk-order-should-be-enforced-in-ontario/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appeal-court-finds-that-non-final-uk-order-should-be-enforced-in-ontario</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/appeal-court-finds-that-non-final-uk-order-should-be-enforced-in-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CCAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement of foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan of arrangement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reinsurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructuring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[winding up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario’s Court of Appeal recently recognised a U.K. High Court’s initial order in a scheme of arrangement aimed at winding up the reinsurance business of Cavell Insurance Company Limited. It did so despite the fact that the U.K. court’s order did not meet the traditional requirement that only a final judgment of a foreign court for the payment of a definite sum of money will be enforced in Canada.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/appeal-court-finds-that-non-final-uk-order-should-be-enforced-in-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The cross-border woes of Conrad Black – the dilemma of differing approaches to self-incrimination in Canada and the US.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%25e2%2580%2593-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Cantwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege against self-incrimination; international law; admissibility of evidence; cross-border legal issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conrad Black and other officers and directors of Ravelston must attend to be examined under oath, even though there is a risk that their evidence could be used against them in criminal proceedings in the US , the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in November 2005.[1] This case highlights a serious conflict between the Canadian&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/he-cross-border-woes-of-conrad-black-%e2%80%93-the-dilemma-of-differing-approaches-to-self-incrimination-in-canada-and-the-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mediation Confidentiality Preserved: Rudd v. Trossacs Investments</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 19:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate dispute resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limited partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meredith Hayward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[without prejudice privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mediators breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the confidentiality of mediations by refusing to compel a mediator to testify about communications between parties at a mediation. Rudd v. Trossacs Investments]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
